• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

The Trump/Putin connection started long long before what Emily seems aware of.

In Donald’s idiot child namesake dropped the fact the “we get all the money we need from Russia” way back when. In 2008 he told a real estate conference, when it was pointed out that Don Sr had burned all his western creditors “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia!”.

The Miss Universe contest (you remember, Emily -when he crashed the girls’ dressing room?) in 2013 was a big step toward getting Uncle Vlad to approve a Trump Tower Moscow. Vlad decided that would devalue Donny as an asset so it didn’t happen.
The Mueller report did not say what Bill Barr said it said; Trump and Putin conspired to get Trump into power in 2016, and it worked. Vlad has been trying to retain his valuable asset ever since, but Trump is too fucking stupid to even realize he was chattel in the first place. Now that Orange Jesus has a quasi legal, open ended infinite money laundering scam operating (DJT) he doesn’t have to stay in line so much any more.
 
Donald J. Trump IS an existential threat to democracy, which he has been relentlessly telling us, both implicitly and explicitly.
True.
Denial is real. So are Russian assets.
When someone remains assiduously unaware of those facts, yet feels it’s their place to broadcast their denial, it is really hard to deny the possibility that their interest might coincide with that of the Trump Party. And it is unreasonable to believe they don’t know what that is.
 
I’m aware that during the debate, Hillary asked Trump if he would confront Vladimir Putin, which came up as Russian interference started to become a topic during the election. I don’t think that was out of the ordinary for a presidential candidate trying to get a weak response from their opponent. The major controversy surrounding collusion really escalated in 2017 with the release of the dossier. By that point, Trump was already president, and Hillary had essentially disappeared from the political landscape.
The "Russian puppet" phrase was used by both.
Uh, Donald fucked that one up; Hillary first observed that he was a puppet. Then came the protest and obligatory counter-accusation “NO PUPPET! NO PUPPET! YOU’RE THE PUPPET!”
There was no mention of anyone else being a puppet until Donald was justly accused.
 
Is it your belief that if Trump wins, there will be no violent reaction from the opposing voters?
Like last time he “won”?
Damn, I hope not. We gotta do better than that, and be more effective than Trump’s bungled coup attempt.
 
The Trump/Putin connection started long long before what Emily seems aware of.

In Donald’s idiot child namesake dropped the fact the “we get all the money we need from Russia” way back when. In 2008 he told a real estate conference, when it was pointed out that Don Sr had burned all his western creditors “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia!”.
Actually it was Eric who said that.

President Trump’s son, Eric, once told a golf writer that funding for Trump golf courses come from Russia, that writer recounted in a new interview.

James Dodson during an interview Friday with Boston’s WBUR described meeting Donald Trump in 2014 and being invited to play golf at the Trump National Golf Club Charlotte.

He said asked Donald Trump how he was paying for his courses, and the now-president “sort of tossed off that he had access to $100 million,” Dodson said in the interview.

Dodson said he then questioned Eric Trump, who was along for the day.

{mosads}”I said, ‘Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks — because of the recession, the Great Recession — have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years,’” the writers told WBUR.

“And this is what he said. He said, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’”
 
You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?
Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.
Reference please?
 
Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true... but that conspiracy theory was adopted and amplified by lower ranking dems, media outlets, and social media every bit as much as any of Trump's childish and moronic nicknames.

The rumors about Trump and Russia started circulating during his first term (Post Hilary). While it's debatable whether the focus was misguided, the rumor wasn’t created out of nowhere.
They started prior to his first term beginning, not post Clinton. The entire "hope they release her emails" happened during the campaign, before the election.
Harris has called Trump unstable and unhinged, has repeatedly compared him to fascist dictators, and similar. She has said that Trump is dangerous to americans.

Have you actually listened to Trump or seen his Truth Social posts? This accusation didn’t come out of nowhere. Just to be clear, I’m not arguing whether or not the claims have merit, but they certainly weren't invented out of thin air.

View attachment 48154

Threatening the media? That’s not unhinged at all—surely not.:whistle:
He's an asshole, no doubt. But there's also a fair bit of interpretation that goes into everything related to Trump. In this case, for example, you're assuming that Trump is threatening the media - and if you already believe that he's a tyrannical devil hell-bent on destroying the constitution and becoming dictator for life, that would seem to be a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

But it's not the only way to interpret it. Someone who isn't a prior convinced that Trump is pure evil might assume that he means that people in general aren't going to forget that 60 Min was complicit in replacing a poor interview with something scripted and trying to pretend that was how it really went - and that because people will remember that bit of shenanigans, 60 Min will suffer for their poor choice.

I'm not a mind reader. On the spectrum of possible interpretation of what Trump was thinking inside his comb-over-ed head, I tend to think he's wanted to sound tough but had no particular intent to actually pursue anything threatening toward the media. He's a pretty well-established blowhard after all. Of course, I tend to not believe a single thing that comes out of either of their mouths, and I tend to think that pretty much all of it is vacuous blather as performance art.
You might agree with her opinion - that's fine, you can have whatever opinion you like. But at least recognize that they're both engaged in the same type of negative smear-mongering approach.

The point isn’t whether I agree with her opinion, but rather whether it’s based on things Trump has actually said. Instead of addressing the criticism, Trump and his supporters dismiss these reactions as completely fabricated, claiming they aren’t in response to anything he’s said and are invented out of thin air. That's nuts. That’s like me responding to your reply with, "What are you talking about? I didn’t say anything—you’re crazy! :ROFLMAO:

Now, contrast calling Trump unhinged for things he’s actually said, like "Obama founded ISIS," ;) with Trump’s claims of a rigged election and accusations that Democrats fabricated or destroyed votes to cheat him. Where are the words or actions that justify those election-related accusations?

Edit: I misspoke, I meant (post Hilary). Edited to correct. To clarify further, I meant to say that by that point, Hillary was already out of the picture.
Yes, you're correct. Trump did say those words. He did say Obama founded ISIS. But it's also completely obvious that wasn't claiming that Obama *literally* started ISIS. It's clear from context that he's using figurative language, and is implying that Obama made the situation in the middle east so much worse that ISIS is happy Obama is president. He's saying that Obama is responsible for ISIS arising.

Look - I don't agree with his assessment. The situation in the ME predated Obama, and while Obama didn't materially improve it, I don't think he really made it worse either. It was what it was - and pretty much still is.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, those specific words came out of his mouth. And then the media and other people grab hold of it and present it as if Trump were speaking literally - they imply that Trump literally meant that Obama went out and said "Hey, let's start a terrorist organization!" This happens all the time - Trump does this regularly to his opponents - so do his supporters, for example when Harris talked about college students being idiots. But he's not the only one. Things get taken out of context, and then intentionally misconstrued by politicians and by their supporters. But it's highly selective - it's almost always a case of "Oh my guy, obviously my guy didn't mean it literally, it was just colorful language or a clever turn of a phrase. But your guy - well, there's no way your guy wasn't entirely and completely serious about it. It can only possibly have been meant absolutely literally".

Me, I'm sitting here observing that in context neither guy was being literal, and that all the people who think it was entirely literal have either lost their mind or have lost their integrity.

You know what? This is larger than Trump. I'm starting to think that people's inability to distinguish between figurative and literal language is going to be the downfall of our species. It's indicative of the loss of abstract reasoning.
 
It's this:
But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, those specific words came out of his mouth.

In combination with this:
Look - I don't agree with his assessment. The situation in the ME predated Obama, and while Obama didn't materially improve it, I don't think he really made it worse either. It was what it was - and pretty much still is.

That’s what makes him unhinged. He says things in a ridiculous way, and even when you dig deeper to figure out what he really means, it’s still nonsense. The real unhinged part is he genuinely believes his own nonsense. :whistle:
 
Trump reminds me of this nigga

1729127007194.png

Out here telling us the US is on fire when he the one starting it. Why do you think they call him smokey?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD
Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought it possible to link Trump, Smokey the Bear and nigga together so succinctly. Just goes to show you almost anything is possible on the internet if you spend enough time on it. Well done, sir!
 
You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?
Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.
Reference please?
You know, that's your problem. You're so willing to chastise others for disparaging Trump and spread your doubt about the things being talked about here that Trump has said. Yet lack the basic knowledge of the things you chastise others for and then get all huffy when you are called on it.

I'm still waiting for the cites from you of the things people here have said about Trump that weren't true. When you do so, I will provide the cites to the senate report.

Or just look it up yourself.
 
It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.
I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.
Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.
And what is wrong with violence? In the defense of liberty it maybe essential as we have discovered several times in our history. I don’t wish it. But I’ll be damned if I roll over and accept tyranny. I’ll try other means first. But we must always be prepared for the violent defense of our liberties.
SLD,

You are a lawyer. You know all governments are just gangs that exist, composed of the elite, that defend their turf from other nations/gangs so they can pimp any society for their own benefit. Any good things or service provided to the regular citizen is just to get him or her to go along with the game. I don't and never have felt anything about this country or any country worth dying for.
Completely and utterly wrong.
 
You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?
Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.
Reference please?
Google is your friend @Emily Lake :

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.
 

I'm not a mind reader. On the spectrum of possible interpretation of what Trump was thinking inside his comb-over-ed head, I tend to think he's wanted to sound tough but had no particular intent to actually pursue anything threatening toward the media.

He tried to overthrow the government, for Christ sake, and nearly got Nancy Pelosi and his own vice president killed!
 
Here’s a perfect example of how the “Trump is an existential threat to democracy” talk reflects a desire to broadcast the stakes in this election, not to stoke/rationalize/encourage violence against the Right, as Emily Lake would have it. And this…from a Republican.
Ursula Schneider, 52, is an artist from Tucson, Arizona:
I was a Republican for 30 years. I just had been part of the party all of my life — I was an evangelical conservative Christian. When Trump came along, I didn't like him. I had known of Trump for many years, of course, but I always thought he just seems kind of crass and rude and all of that. But I was a Republican, and I had been indoctrinated in all the Republican rhetoric about how Hillary was the devil and she was terrible and we couldn't possibly have her in office.
After he got elected, I started to pay attention and I began to really see how he was fomenting hate among Americans. You know, rather than just people disagreeing on politics, now people were, like, literally hating one another because they disagreed, and that didn't fit with my core values.

And then when January 6 happened, it was like, ‘Oh my God, we are going to lose our country. Our whole nation is just going to be done. We are going to have a civil war.’ It was very frightening. I live in a rural area. People have signs all over about, you know, ‘Welcome to Trump Hill’ and ‘Don't tread on me’ kind of stuff. And I became aware that I can't even let my neighbors know my political opinion. I wouldn't even put a sign in my yard, because there's people who are threatening. I'm a gun owner — I'm not anti-gun — but you can't even drive down the road in the community where I live without people being threatening.
Just that whole kind of conglomeration of people really fomenting hate; like he started it, but everybody else kind of glommed on and it seems like until he is done, we won't be able to heal this rift that has developed in our nation. I think our nation needs people from both sides of the fence and all the different opinions need to come together. That's what I saw Joe Biden working towards. My first Democratic vote ever was Joe Biden in 2020 and my husband and I both are planning on voting Democrat down the ballot because I don't trust the Republican Party anymore.
I think that [we] may not have the opportunity to vote again in the future. I think we can live through a season where policies are made that we don't agree with. I don't think we can live through a season where we lose democracy altogether and the right to vote. And I mean, if I'm being 100% honest, I'm concerned we're moving towards fascism. That sounds extreme, but everything that I see Trump doing and his people through Project 2025 and all of that looks an awful lot like other autocracies that have formed over this last century. And I think people need to get educated and understand this isn't just another election because you like this set of policies or that set of policies. This really is a fight for democracy.

 
Schneider well explains why I consider myself far too conservative to vote for a Republican candidate above the local level. And even there it's dodgy.
Tom
 
It's this:
But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, those specific words came out of his mouth.

In combination with this:
Look - I don't agree with his assessment. The situation in the ME predated Obama, and while Obama didn't materially improve it, I don't think he really made it worse either. It was what it was - and pretty much still is.

That’s what makes him unhinged. He says things in a ridiculous way, and even when you dig deeper to figure out what he really means, it’s still nonsense. The real unhinged part is he genuinely believes his own nonsense. :whistle:
Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.
 
Trump reminds me of this nigga

View attachment 48157

Out here telling us the US is on fire when he the one starting it. Why do you think they call him smokey?
Trying to translate this...

Is it your opinion that if only Trump weren't out there being a snide and childish blowhard... Our economy would be awesome, health care costs wouldn't be rapidly rising, food costs would be at pre-covid levels, and immigration would be at massively lower levels? Or do you think that the only "fire" we have is politicians being nasty about each other?
 
Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.
Other than sycophants, who has any reason to preference "what he must have meant" over "what he has repeatedly said" when it comes to Donald Trump?
 
Back
Top Bottom